I don’t mind the idea of newspaper sites requiring real identities for comments - the vast, vast majority of newspaper comments sections are utterly toxic as it is. But I do object to using Facebook, given that company’s abysmal attitude to privacy and the degree of access it gives to sites/apps using Facebook logins.
It’s OK, but only because Internet discussions DO NOT MATTER AT ALL.
They aren’t forced to post at all. If they wish to post, there is accountability for doing so, that’s all. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of that speech. It just means the government won’t lock you up for saying things. This is their website, and if they don’t want people posting racist crap on it, I can understand that. They think people are less likely to be completely uncivil if they aren’t anonymous, which is likely true.
This isn’t a privacy issue because no one is coming to you (or some place where your privacy should be protected) and exposing anything about you.
Yeah that sounds about right. I guess now I’m ready to abandon the privacy argument as it relates to how I personally feel about this. But now I am ready to take up the Facebook-is-shit-about-privacy-and-have-fast-become-the-de-facto-standard argument that other posters have since brought up. That’s worth talking about.
I guess the thing to do would be to try and pressure Facebook into adopting better privacy policies. But Facebook’s whole purpose, aside from social networking, is letting marketing companies develop demographic analysis based on user activity. Combined with FB’s policy of having people post under their own names and privacy protections seem somewhat antithetical to FB’s mode of operation. Plus, how would you get them to change? Legislation? That could be a really messy process and might ultimately prove ineffective. Convince FB users to switch to a different service? Seems unlikely to happen because it’s so popular.
I realize that advocating for more privacy seems strange these days, and especially on the internet where you technically have no privacy at all since your IP sees everything (and will gladly turn you over to the government if they come asking). Lately I feel like a dinosaur because younger people apparently do not seem to care as much about this sort of thing, and if I want to remain at a level of privacy I’m comfortable with I have to increasingly opt out of using certain services. I mean, I still use Facebook but only after all my friends and family started using it and it became apparent that not using it would end up making my social life more difficult. It sucks to be dragged into something you’re not really sure about. And I guess with this paragraph it shows I’m not ready to abandon a pro-privacy position in general but you probably already knew that by now :P
Why do I get the feeling you’re younger than me?
I agree that Facebook privacy is terrible. I also agree that young people seem to care less about privacy, which is a shame in many ways. Privacy is still such a new idea (historically speaking) that I’d hate to see it killed by generational indifference because I think it’s very important.
So Hagbard, I will join your privacy advocacy. I just don’t think this particular issue is the one to make our stand.
I just had a friends daughter leave her husband in Florida and return home while announcing she was going to get a divorce. My kids are friends with her and the shit storm that hit Facebook over this (the wife/husband were in high school band together and shared friends) was amazing. It took several days before the idea that none of the stuff anybody was writing belonged on Facebook. My wife and I were amazed how casually these 17-22 year olds trashed each other on Facebook. Even within the families they were trashing each other. Kids even declared the discussion off limits, as they trashed each other on Facebook. Amazing. No concept of privacy.
Because I probably am! I’m 27 but I hear the average age on this board is significantly older.
Yeah this probably wasn’t the best thread to get on the soapbox but oh well.
It’s only the young kids who feel compelled to point out how old they are.
Or how old they feel.
Shut up, kid.
Let the young 'uns speak, tis amusing.
Not gonna happen, gramps.
I dunno. A kid who takes his nick from Illuminatus? I say give 'im the benefit of the doubt.
Newspapers have no need for comment sections. They think they’re involving the public in the discussion but what they’re really doing is driving away anyone reasonable and sane. Every comment thread on the web site for our local paper is an absolute cesspool of hate and bigotry and racism. It’s disgusting.
Working for a newspaper company that doesn’t have comment sections on its website articles, I can tell you there’s a huge demand for that kind of thing. But the company doesn’t want it for the exact reasons outlined here. Because these things become cesspools on every newspaper site you look at. Even the ones that are moderated are barely concealed mud bubbles of hate and knowitall.
So it would be time to look at the reasons. And here comes the old “anonymity” argument, which is what every amateur can grasp. The underlying thought being that people are actually wolves, barely restrained by social control, which is enabled by a constant identity. None of these really work online: Registration, real names, all can be circumvented.
But even the internet shitwad theory in all its simplicity knows that there’s another ingredient: An audience. And a newspaper site usually has a large audience. So people who post in its comment sections feel they can speak with the same authority like the journalists who write the actual articles, because they get the same attention/audience.
Simple solution: Move the forum away from the actual newspaper site. Make it a branded standalone thing, where people can discuss the articles without feeling they were writing on/for the newspaper itself. Then have a moderator pick especially smart and insightful comments and add them under the actual article on the newspaper site again, so it becomes an accolade to get featured there.
Neat idea that takes effort and cost money. Newspapers want cheap technical solutions to complex problems and also want them to save their struggling business (which once again puts the emphasis on the ‘cheap’ part).
An external forum is usually easier to set up than an integrated one. And if you want customer participation you’ll need at least one moderator anyway.
Give him sole access to the normal comment system that’s part of every newspaper CMS to post the good ones and you’re done.
It also allows you to publish posts directly on the forum instead of going through a moderation queue, which makes up the bulk of moderator work in moderated newspaper systems and is an annoyance for the users because of chronology issues.
It’s not hypocritical at all. You aren’t anonymous here – you’re pseudonymous.
Your identity here isn’t your legal identity, but you have a name everyone knows you by, a reputation, and a certain amount of social capital that depends on your behavior.
This is the key, really. To have a functioning community, you don’t need real names. You just need persistent identities and some sense of community connection.
This is a really good point. And also probably part of the reason newspapers are so shat on. They don’t have a community, but they do offer an audience.